0081 The sixth primer introduces the content level of the society_C tier.

Prior to primer six, the family appears twice as a metaphor for the organization_B tier.  

In primer four, the family associates to the entire organization_B tier.

In primer five, the proper family_aB associates to the content_a level of the organization_B tier.

0082 The family as a corporation_aB expands into an interscope.  The provider associates to management_caB.  The nurturer goes with production_baB.  The child matches service_aaB.  Management_caB, production_baB and service_aaB go with a corporation_aB.  Provider_caB, nurturer_baB and children_aaB go with the family as a proper organization_aB.

0083 Like the corporation, the family^org_aB is founded on an accommodation, which I call “the marriage deal”.  The marriage deal_3aB is more than the feelings, perceptions and judgments of individuals in community_A.  It_3aB is the normal context of human pair-bonding_1aB.  Human pair-bonding is evolutionarily ancient.  So, we are innately prepared to recognize the marriage deal_3aB whenever we encounter it_3aB.

0084 What does this imply?

The family associates to all three tiers of the presence underlying the word, “religion”.

0085 Once again, the family participates in three associations.

0086 Family^inst_3aC goes with the content_a level of the society_C tier, also called “the institution level”.  An institution_aC is not the same as an organization_B or a corporation_aB, even though they may appear to be the same.  An institution_aC puts the organization_B into perspective.  It is the difference between a mission statement and an organization chart.

0087 Family_B, the family as an organization, associates to the entire organization_B interscope.

Here is a picture.

The ancient Greek word for “household”, “oikos“, is the root word for today’s term, “economy”.

0088 Family^org_aB, the family as corporation, associates to the content level of the organization interscope.  

The marriage deal_3aaB stands as the normal context₃ of the content level_a of the corporation_aB interscope.

0089 What possibility_1aaB underlies the marriage deal_3aaB?

The potential of the male-female pair bond_1aaB does.

0090 A Primer on the Family adds the institution_a level of the society_C tier to the picture of the family.  Family^inst_3aC putsthe proper family_aB into perspective under the conditions of the family as an organization_B.

Here is a picture.

0091 The family^inst_3aC exemplifies an infrasovereign religion that does not require sovereign power, because family organizational objects_2aC innately appeal to human sensibilities.  The marriage deal_3aaB has served our genus well.

0092 If a social madness sweeps through civilization, proclaiming that families are not righteous, then its victory paves the way for insanity.  A leader who destroys the family destroys “himself”.  From the social wreckage, a realization emerges.   Dad loves mom.  Dad provides for mom.  Mom loves dad.  Children are blessings.  Mom puts dad in charge of the family.

Yes, the realization is as old as humanity itself.

0097 The sixth primer introduces the content_a level of the society_C tier, while discussing the family.

The seventh primer develops a general picture of institutions_aC by reviewing a book, by anthropologist Mary Douglas, titled How Institutions Think (1986).

0098 Here is a diagram for the institution_aC.

The normal context of institution_3aC brings the actuality of organizational objects_2aC into relation with the potential of righteousness_1aC.

0099 From A Primer on the Family, I know several things.

Institutions_3aC put the organization_B tier into perspective.

The organization’s objects_2aC address the individual in community_A and call him and her to participate in a proper organization_aB.

0100 The interplay between the society_C, the organization_B and individual in community_A tiers is complicated.  So, the primer is fairly long.

Plus, the seventh primer ends with a challenge.  Can the category-based nested form apply to the trial of Jesus in the Gospel of John, verses 18:28 through 19:23?

0101 Here, I attempt an application.  First, I associate elements of the theodrama to the nested form.  Second, I discuss some implications.

0102 Here is the story.

In John 18:33-35, Pontius Pilate, disappointed that the crowd outside the praetorium lobbies for executing Jesus, comes back into the praetorium and asks the Son of Man, “Are you king of the Jews?”

Jesus asks Pilate.  What are those outside saying about me?

Pilate replies that they want you (Jesus) to be executed.  So Pilate asks again.  Are you (Jesus) claiming to be king of the Jews?”

I pause.

0103 Does any of this associate to the normal context of institution_3aC?

Those outside the praetorium belong to one institution, the Jewish temple authorities.

Those inside belong to another institution, the Roman authorities.

Obviously, Jesus belongs to neither of these two institutions.

0104 One organizational object_2aC is held in common by these two institutions_3aC.

Jesus is being positioned as an organizational object_2aC that serves as a site of contention.  Roman authority does not permit the Jews to establish a king.  But, the religious leaders claim that Jesus regards himself as the king of the Jews. Therefore, Jesus has broken Roman law and must be executed.

So. the object^org_2aC is the king of the Jews.

0105 What associates to righteousness_1aC?

I suppose that the normal context of the Jewish temple_3aC brings the king of the Jews_2aC into relation with the possibility that a king would defend his people against the occupying Roman forces_1aC.

Also, the normal context of Roman authority_3aC brings the king of the Jews_2aC into relation with the potential that a Jewish king would lead a rebellion_1aC.

0106 I continue.

In John 18:36-37, Jesus answers Pilate’s question.  Jesus’s kingdom is not of this world.  He is here to bear witness to the truth.

So, the righteousness_1aC underlying the purported claim that “Jesus is king of the Jews”_2aC does not support the normal contexts_3aC.

0107 Implications?

Well, one obvious take home point is that neither normal context applies to Jesus.  Jesus stands above both temple and empire.  His kingdom is outside the earthly realms.  Yet, here He is, about to be executed as a worldly king, when clearly He is not.

0108 In John 18:38, Pilate replies, “What is truth?”

More on that later.

0109 In How Institutions Think, Mary Douglas calls into question rational choice theory and functionalism.  These anthropological schools dismiss two sociologists, Emile Durkheim and Ludwig Fleck.  These sociologists insist that institutions_3aC interpellate individuals in community_A.

Interpellate?

“Inter” is Latin for “among”.  “Pellate” is Latin for “call”.

0110 Institutions_3aC call us_A, like any person may call us_A.  Interpellation supports the notion that an institution is “a person writ large”.

At the same time, the content_a level of the society_C tier expands into an interscope that looks like the society_C tier.  The similarity supports the notion that an institution is “a society writ small”.

Here is a picture.

0111 Now, I return to Pilate’s reply.

Jesus is not a contender for the throne of Judea.  Instead, Jesus is a witness to the truth_1aaC.  

What do Jewish and Roman authorities fear?  They fear loss of stability_1baC.  They fear that a king of the Jews will manifest.  Neither the temple nor the legion would be able to control a priestly and a warrior king.  So, both work against the rise of… what may be called… “David’s promised descendant_1caC“.

0112 Why?

What would a return of David’s lineage do?

Would it reconcile the Jew and the Roman?

Or would it lead to a massive battle?

What does the truth that Jesus bears witness to eventually do?

Does it reconcile Jerusalem and Rome?

0113 Take a look at the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility.

0114 The normal context of reconciliation_1caC virtually brings the actuality of stability_1baC into relation with the potential of the truth_1aaC.

0115 The eighth primer introduces the concepts of infrasovereign and sovereign religions.  The nomenclature is ambiguous.  Perhaps, one day, the ambiguity will be clarified.

But, remember, words are slippery beings.

0116 Technically, infrasovereign religions are institutions_3aC that seek sovereign power_3bC in order to achieve their organizational objects_2aC.

Theoretically, all institutions_3aC belong to the content_a level of the society_C tier.  Every institution_3aC stands below the sovereign_3bC.  Plus, some of these institutions_3aC are obviously religious.  But, they do not seek sovereign power_3bC in order to implement their organizational objectives_2aC.  Until, of course, they change their minds.

Can a not infrasovereign religion_aC become an infrasovereign religion merely by deciding to pursue sovereign power_3bC?

Yes, plus, an institution_3aC that self-identifies as “not religious” may become an infrasovereign religion by pursuing sovereign power_3bC.

Yes, there is terminological ambiguity.

0117 The Reformation (around 1500 to 1550 AD) consists of Christian factions, breaking away from a historical unity (the Catholic Church) filled with um… factions.  The act of breaking away constitutes an organizational object_2aC.  So, break-away factions appeal to sovereign authorities_3bC in order to establish laws_2bC that allow the new order_1bC.  These factions gain the label, “religions”.

0118 The Reformation shows that sovereign power_3bC virtually situates institutions_3aC, including the new factions_3aC.  Plus, the new factions_3aC (as well as the old factions_3aC that do not break away) pursue sovereign power_3bCin order to implement their organizational objectives_2aC.

Here is a picture of the first two levels of the society_C tier.

0119 What does this imply?

Infrasovereign and sovereign religions confound order_1bC with righteousness_1aC.

Religions that are not infrasovereign do not.

0120 Sovereign power_3bC allows an institution_3aC to impose its object^org_2aC as order_1bC upon those outside the institution_3aC.

What does this lead to?

Are those outside the institution_3aC not righteous_1aC?

0121 America’s (il)liberal big government legal system (1950 to present) offers an example.  The discussion is difficult, because the meanings of spoken words twist in the drama of an institution_3aC… or rather, an infrasovereign religion_3aC,… justifying its acquisition of legal authority_2bC.

Nevertheless, the example in primer eight raises a weirdly foundational question.

Is sexual orientation identical to race?

0122 The modern (il)liberal says “yes”, because both are genetically determined.

The Christian says “no”, because, on one hand, discrimination based on race is historically conditioned.  American slavery and Jim Crow laws are extrinsic to the person.  On the other hand, sexual orientation is personally conditioned.  Homosexual activity involves personal choice.  These choices are intrinsic to the person.

0123 The clash of these two worldviews provides a frame for appreciating how both homosexual activists and Christian believers operate as religions.  The former is an infrasovereign religion.  The latter is not.

0124 The ninth primer concerns classical political philosophy.

What do classical philosophers talk about?

Well for one (1), they ask people for their opinions and for two (2), they try to figure out what is really going on,concerning the topic of opinion.

0125 The first (1) involves a strange game, concerning the difference between sensible and social constructions.  Most people regard their opinions as sensible constructions, in the same way that they regard their spoken words as real.

A spoken word labels an artifact that validates the… um… spoken word.  So, opinions are sensible in so far as artifacts validate them.

0126 That is where the second (2) comes on stage.  What happens when artifacts no longer validate their words?  Or, even more unsettling, what happens when the origin of opinions is social, rather than sensible construction?

Where have I heard that idea before?

0127 Now, I want to discuss one small section of the ninth primer, in order to explore a referral from classical political philosophy back to the distinction between sensible and social construction in the second primer.

0128 Here is a general picture of social construction.

0129 Note the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

A perspective-level socially constructed reference_2c brings the actuality of a bewildering experience_2b into relation with a content-level originating reference_2a.

I shorten this nested form into a coherent whole with the label, “a reference_2c constructed_3b on a reference_2a“.

Here, the term, “constructed_3b“, points to the failure of sensible construction and the triggering of social construction.

Also, the entire label has the character of secondness, the realm of actuality, when social construction really has the character of thirdness, the realm of triadic relations.

Unwittingly, my label changes categories.

0130 In the next blog, I will apply this pattern to one of my cherished opinions.

Wine is the nectar of the gods.

0131 Wine is the nectar of the gods.

That is my opinion.

0132 My opinion starts as a social construction.

0133 A perspective-level socially constructed reference_2c brings the actuality of a bewildering experience_2b into relation with a content-level originating reference_2a.

The normal context of the nectar of the gods_2c virtually brings the actuality of intoxication_2b into relation with a glass or two (or three?) of wine_2a.

0134 My label, reference_2c constructed_2b on a reference_2a, turns the bewildering experience of intoxication into a contiguity between the perspective-level naming of “the nectar of gods” and the content-level encounter with wine.

0135 When I say, “Wine is the nectar of the gods.”, the verb, “is”, actually points to the bewildering experience of intoxication.

But, look up the definition of “is” in a leather-bound dictionary.  “Bewildering experience of intoxication” is not listed as one of the definitions of “is”, except in so far as the intoxication is a state of being.

0136 So, what happens when I meet my philosophical friends and state my opinion?

The conversants assume that I am making a statement subject to sensible construction.

0137 What does one of my philosopher friends reply?

“How can wine be the nectar of the gods?”

Yes, the logic of secondness includes the laws of contradiction and noncontradiction.

0139 Any defense can lead to only one conclusion.

I am drunk.

0140 Well, “intoxicating” is not the only term that may be applied to A Primer on Classical Political Philosophy.

Another phrase is sobering.  It says, “The sovereign will not be denied.”

The classical philosopher replies, “The glitter of your crown pales in comparison to the constellation of virtues shining above your head.” 

Is that reply philosophy?  Or poetry?

0141 The tenth primer returns to a world where the suprasovereign level of the society tier is occluded.

0142 Classical political philosophers are always caught in the middle.

The middle of what?

The middle of two opposing factions.

0143 What happens when a suprasovereign religion_3cC harbors the single point of agreement between two opposing factions_2cC?

For classical philosophers, the object that brings all into relation_2cC consists of a constellation of virtues_2cC.

For opposing factions in a divided society, the object that brings all into relation_2cC brings everyone into conflict.  After all, what is everyone fighting over?  No one can say?  Well, perhaps, the single point of agreement is that the other party is wrong.

0144 There are no grounds for reconciliation.  So, each contesting party_3aC demands sovereign power_3bC in order to achieve its organizational objectives_2aC, which is based on the conviction that the other party is wrong_1aC.

Of course, two movements at each other’s throats_2aC gives the sovereign_3bC plenty of room for asserting legal authority_2bC.

0145 Here is a picture.

The sovereign_3bC is in charge of maintaining order_1bC.

But, sovereign acts and decrees_2bC merely maintain the fight between competing institutions_3aC.

The sovereign gains more and more authority by satisfying no one.

0146 Indeed, a sovereign_3bC capable of accommodating two opposing camps, keeping the conflict roaring, does not need to look up and see a constellation of virtues in the heavens above.  Rather, accommodation encourages a lack of virtue among the opposing factions_3aC.  The two antagonistic righteousnesses_1aC may boil over into chaos_1bC.

0147 Oh, chaos_1bC increases the demand for sovereign power_3bC.

So, sovereign power_3bC stokes the flames without realizing that chaos_1bC can also destroy the reigning order_1bC.